2. digital
  3. 129519-33969

Hi-res digital audio vs sacd

I've got a pretty good setup for vinyl and digital audio files, but I have an opportunity to get a "minty" 10-yr old audiophile-grade CD/SACD player for $350. I am intrigued by it but don't know if it would really give me any better quality for some recordings than what I already have. Also, I know that SACD didn't really catch on, but I see tons of audiophile-quality releases out there from MFSL, etc.

The player I'm looking at seems to be both an amazing, rock solid transport with a Cirrus Logic 32 bit DSD chip.

My digital setup is currently a Bluesound Vault II, pushing out FLAC files of various quality up to 24-bit 192KHz to a Cary DAC-100t tube DAC (which does not have DSD support, so I am guessing that I wouldn't be able to leverage it for the SACD player), using a Creative Cable Green Hornet coax in between the two.

Can anyone chime in with their opinion, both on what I should consider in terms of quality comparing the two as well as music collection availability on SACD vs hi-res files that are sold online through HDtracks and other vendors (like I know some mastering houses have their own releases on SACD but not sure if the same music/mastering is available on digital files).
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xblisshifi
milpai's avatar
milpai
2,377 posts
 
Though I love SACDs (physical discs), I would have to agree with the 2 posters before me. The reason for this is - it seems you do not have a single SACD. In that case, you should simply stick with DSD (if you like SACD sound) and consider a new DAC. And btw, that disc mechanism in that "minty" player might fail at some point, and being slightly older, you might not a replacement part.
Good luck.
randy-11
1,913 posts
 
The real issue is SQ and that includes the recording and mastering, not just how many bits it spits.

I'm told that many early SACDs were originally just upsampled CDs.  And some of the ones I have make grungy source material (Stones) sound too sweet, tho I dunno if they were re-mastered or just upsampled.

My view is that you need to be very careful as to what you are paying a premium for over Redbook CD, and get info on each and every release.

Even if high res is an improvement over Redbook that one can hear*, it will be very difficult to show that a difference that is clearly due to SQ is NOT just due to re-mastering.  So I don't think anyone can say one is always better than the other, at least not yet.

*And I have never seen a carefully done study showing that.
bubba12's avatar
bubba12
436 posts
 
I'm starting to believe the format doesn't matter as much as the particular recording. I like to dabble in all of it for the sake of the hobby. If it's a good deal, why not?

psag
518 posts
 
When it comes to new formats, don't forget about the profit motive. My ears are just as happy with the old formats.
honeybee2012
112 posts
 
+ 1 @ bubba12.    Just like some SACDs are upsampled, some high Rez down loads have the same issue.   To quote someone in the political world, " it is the recording stupid".  No offense intended.
More to discover